Second key prosecution witness devastates the State’s case against George Zimmerman for second degree murder.

What is going on with this case? The prosecution is supposed to present evidence and witnesses that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman committed the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin. In the first week of the trial, they have done more damage to their case than help and if one looked at the trial objectively, one would swear that the prosecutors were the defense team. A second key prosecution witness has dealt a major blow to the State’s case. Prosecution witness John Good may have caused irreparable damage to the States case with his testimony and dismantled the prosecutions case as Good stated that Trayvon Martin was straddling Zimmermanthe entire time.

“He was on his back. The person on the top was the same person on the top when they were T-shaped to the sidewalk … Like, there was only one person. Then I could see a second person. It looked more than just a tussle. And that’s when I thought it got serious when they moved up to the sidewalk and he was more in a straddle position and arm movements were going downward … As soon as I saw the arm movement that’s when I went back inside. In the beginning (I heard George Zimmerman screaming for help) when I saw someone under the person on top.”

More from CBS News and John Good’s damning testimony to the defense. This was supposed to be a witness favorable to the prosecution, in the end, that was hardly the case. Good testified he saw a person in black clothing on top of another person with “white or red” clothing. Good said he couldn’t see faces but he “could tell that the person on the bottom had a lighter skin color.”

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in “mixed martial arts position” he later described to police as a “ground and pound.” He said he saw “arm movements going downward,” though he couldn’t be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

“The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?” asked defense attorney Mark O’Mara. “He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?”

“That’s what it looked like,” Good answered.

Good said he then went back inside to call 911. As he was dialing the phone, he heard a gunshot. His 911 call was played in court as the jury listened.

“I just heard a shot right behind my house. They’re wrestling right in back of my porch,” Good said on the recording. “…I’m pretty sure the guy’s dead out here. Holy sh–.”

Later, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term “ground and pound” before he did.

“It’s possible,” Good said.

De la Rionda honed in on Good’s earlier statement that he couldn’t confirm the person on top was hitting the other person.

“Correct,” Good said.

All of John Good’s testimony for both the prosecution and the defense can be seen here in the following VIDEO’s

WITNESS JOHN GOOD TESTIFIES PART 1

WITNESS JOHN GOOD TESTIFIES PART 2

WITNESS JOHN GOOD TESTIFIES PART 3

The beginning of the cross examination by the defense of prosecution witness John Good.

I don’t understand the double standard. George Zimmerman had the right to self-defense, but Trayvon Martin didn’t? He was in a place he had every right to be in, and was minding his own business. He was being chased by a man with no uniform and no badge. I personally don’t believe he jumped GZ. But what if he had? He didn’t have the right to “stand his ground” or defend himself?
___________________________
SM: Its not self defense when you are punching the crap out of a person smaller than you and you are on top of them MMA style.

Honest question here, what would you have done if some one was following you and you were in a housing complex? Is your response to get into a fight with them?

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

If there had been testimony that TM on the phone with Rachel Jeantel that if he had said he was afraid, GZ had a gun, etc, then you might have a point. Right or wrong, it is difficult for a “reasonable” person to believe that a larger individual (TM) was in fear of GZ without the fact that he knew Zimmerman had a gun. In fact, TV just referred to him as a racial slur, a “creepy ass cracker” which makes most every one believe he was being dismissive of Zimmerman.

Now, if TM was 13 years old like the picture that the MSM put forth to falsely present to facts of the case to the American public and he was that much smaller and younger than GZ, than maybe, you could claim TM’s self defense.

I will go one step further. Had TM pulled the gun away from GZ and/or the gun went off and killed GZ instead, I believe and I 100% think the jury would say that Martin acted in self-defense.

However, just being followed when you are the larger individual is not grounds to assault someone. Without knowing what was said between the two prior to the deadly confrontation, we are left to eye and ear witness testimony and all of it makes TV the aggressor on top of GZ.

Folks, what a reasonable person would have done would have been to walk to a public area, called 911 themselves if they were afraid, instead of Rachel and asked, what do you want? You don’t stop and confront someone with attitude and then get into a fight with them. That is a recipe for disaster.

That is why I say, whoever had been killed in this sad and tragic case, could have been able to defend themselves legally claiming “self defense”. There are no winners here.

Inacessible on
June 30th, 2013 5:18 pm

Anyone who starts a fight while he is armed with a deadly weapon like Zimmerman is guilty of reckless state of mind and certain depravity of character. it is reasonably foreseeable to person A that if he goes up in the dark armed with a weapon and starts a fight with some person B, it is highly probable that B will fight back and that then A can shoot and kill B under the statute claiming self defense. The law is absurd. It should be a crime for people armed with deadly weapons to instigate fights because it is foreseeable it might result in death.
_____________________
SM: How do you know he started the fight? There is no proof of that?

Your logic is beyond absurd. So a police officer cannot follow a suspicious individual? What about a security guard? What about a home owner?

Reckless state of mind might be one who refers to others as “creepy ass crackers”.

Your argument holds no water because if GZ had acted recklessly he would have pulled the gun on TM prior to the altercation, not during. Possessing a gun serves no purpose when you are getting your butt whooped and head smashed against the curb. Obviously GZ did not act recklessly because he only used the gun after he was being assaulted, not before.

Use some logic, not slanted bias. Thanks,
R

Sailcat on
June 30th, 2013 10:32 pm

Re #1: Fair question. Let’s assume I was there that night instead of Trayvon Martin. Since you don’t believe George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because he was a young black kid, let’s say he saw me – an old sixty-ish white guy – acting strange. Anyone who knows me knows I have no sense of direction, so let’s say I’m staying at that complex and I get confused on the way back to my relative’s place from the store. I finally get my bearings and start back on my way when I notice that a creepy (insert a much more profane word than cracker here) is following me. I glance around and George is obviously tailing me and he keeps sticking his hand in his pants. I would do the same thing Trayvon did – run away. And, like Trayvon, I would be afraid to let this knucklehead know where I was staying, so I wouldn’t go to my relative’s place. I might try to hide somewhere. But then George – with his flashlight – might well find me and confront me and – like I’m convinced he did with Trayvon – put his hands on me. Then, the whole situation would escalate, and I would beat the fire out of the creepy little coward until he pulled his gun out and shot me through the heart. Now here’s a question for you. If this scenario played out like I’ve described it, how would you write about it in your blog?

By the way, I’m pretty sure I could take George in a hand-to-hand situation, because I’ve tangled with juveniles the size of Trayvon on numerous occasions and had no trouble taking them to the floor – or the pavement – and getting them under control. So if George couldn’t handle a kid like that, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t fare any better with a geezer like me.
_________________________
SM: With the scenario you provided, instead of calling the girl who can’t read cursive … call the police that some one is falling you and you are in fear of your life.
R

Sailcat on
June 30th, 2013 11:28 pm

Re #3: I agree that GZ was the instigator of the fight. It’s ridiculous to think that he was the aggressor from the get-go, following, menacing, and chasing TM, and then all of a sudden – in the last two minutes of the episode – TM somehow builds up the courage and cunning to turn the tables on him.
_____________________________
SM: Now you are just making stuff up. Please watch the case and the evidence. You are providing opinion, not fact. I understand you have a bias to the case, but if you have watched and listened to the witnesses, that’s not what happened. You don’t know if all of a sudden TM just stopped and confronted GZ and said, get your “creepy ass cracker” self out of my business. Ans then saw the size of GZ and attacked him. Sorry, but TM is not the 13 year old kid that the MSM tried to portray him as.

BTW, if I am a neighborhood watch volunteer, I have every right to follow anyone that looks suspicious and I know does not belong. Following some one or eying some one is not being menacing or profiling. But we have reached a point in this country where if a robber, mugger or rapist was seen driving a blue van, we are not supposed to look out for the blue van? And if a neighborhood was being vandalized by Asian kids, we are not supposed to keep vigilance to groups of Asians? But if they are of color, that’s profiling.

Sorry, I am not a neighborhood watch volunteer and I have stopped at cars that were talking to young kids because the car was not a normal one on the block.

This case is not second degree murder. There is no evidence to prove it and if the prosecution does not have any better than what they presented in the first week, they might as well dismiss the charges because the judge may.

[...] Washington Times has an interesting take on two stories that are very much in the headlines, the George Zimmerman murder trial in the death of Trayvon Martin and the Aaron Hernandez first degree murder arrest. Who knew that [...]